Quote from progers82:
so what if you have been watching. ive been actually entering my system trades there. from a vendor point a view, it
IS NOT ACCURATE. its not timely.
you say its not perfect but to trade anything, the transfer of information to buy or sell so you can get in has to be
absolutely perfect, or else you will lose money trading.
Yes, I agree that vendors have had serious, if intermittent, issues with entering orders on C2. That's a known fact. I've communicated with a few of them, followed the message boards, as well as trialed a few systems. Where I would disagree with you is the extent to which that messes up your subscribers. It all depends on the nature of your system, wouldn't you say?
What they classify as "rapid-fire", intraday trading -- you've got potential problems. Even with TradeBullet -- well documented on the board there.
Any system where the holding period is measuread in hours or days... no problem at all. In fact, I routinely would've gotten better fills on many entry and exit signals than what's reported by C2, as did many others.
In addition, keep in mind that some vendors choose to back up C2's ITM (Instant Trade Messenger) and email with their own IM or SMS alerts. Which is the best current technology, anyway.
It's also important to separate periodic technology issues from C2's overall integrity and objectivity. That's the kind of unfair accusations, earlier in this thread, I was specifically addressing. Or do you actually have reasons to believe that the business model is somehow dishonest, not transparent, less than objective / independent or subject to manipulation, either by C2 or by the vendors?